Fwd: Mind boggling facts for the bank pensioners/retirees

[Srinivasa Murti Devulapalli]

Please go through the content now being forwarded to you.   mind boggling facts are surfaced .  We, the bank retirees, we have got to apply our minds very seriously and consolidate ourselves for our collective well-being.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Srinivasa Murti Devulapalli <devulapa...@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 2:17 PM
Subject: Mind boggling facts for the bank pensioners/retirees
To: devulapa...@yahoo.com, mur...@yahoo.com

Reserve Bank of India
Central Office Building

Shahid Bhagat Singh Marg
Central Office, 
Fort , Mumbai 400001 

 Dear Sir

 Re:   RBI wants uniform Pension provision in PSU banks? Really or allowing cover up of past loot of Employees pension fund by Bank Management and distribution of loot  as dividend/ incentive? 

 

All  issues listed below are based on fact which are verifiable from respective banks website and easily available at your end  being part of regulatory compliances submitted  by these banks to RBI and other regulators.

 

Issue No 1

 We refer to you�re your comment   appearing in Business Standard  dated 14.07.2011 & 15.07.2011  �Same Pension Provisions for the Banks� Draws RBI Flak� detailed as under:  

�After coming down heavily on banks for not making adequate provision for increased pension liabilities arising out of wage revision, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) now wants all public sector banks to have uniform pension liabilities. According to sources in the banking industry, the central bank sees no reason why each public sector bank should have different pension liabilities, since the inputs which go into calculation of pension provision are nearly the same. �RBI says the salary structure is same, the mortality rate is similar and the attrition rate is almost the same for all government-owned banks�at around 0.5 per cent. There is no reason for different actuarial estimates for banks. It feels all public sector banks should have similar actuarial estimates,� said a banker after discussing the matter with RBI officials. The basic pension of retirees from all government banks is 50 per cent of the last salary drawn. Bankers said actuaries of different banks have different estimates, particularly on parameters like the discount rate and the attrition rate for calculating pension liability, which has led to a variation in the burden. As far as the mortality rate is concerned, most banks follow Life Insurance Corporation of India's estimates. The pension provision issue cropped up in the last quarter of the previous financial year, when State Bank of India (SBI) had sought the regulator's approval for pension provision from the bank's capital reserve for wage increases. As a prudential practice, banks make provision out of their profit and loss account. To use capital reserves for provision, banks need RBI's approval. After RBI�s approval, SBI charged nearly Rs 8,000 crore from its reserves to provide for pension liabilities. As a result, SBI�s capital eroded, with Tier-I capital falling below eight per cent. Though RBI had allowed SBI to make provisions from reserves for pension liabilities, the regulator had made it clear that such requests would not be entertained in the future. The central bank had come down heavily on the bank�s chairman and managing directors at an interaction. The regulator had also made it clear such practices were non-compliant with International Financial Reporting Standards.  In 2010-11, provisioning had increased sharply because of the pay revisions agreed during the ninth bipartite settlement. Wages were raised 17.5 per cent and a second pension option was given to both current and retired employees. Gratuity limits were also increased from Rs 3.5 lakh to Rs 10 lakh. According to RBI's financial stability report, the expected additional liability for 24 public sector banks was Rs 30,366 crore, which constituted 81.9 per cent of their net profit for 2009-10. Indian Banks' Association has been mandated by RBI to prepare a pension scheme to facilitate the assessment by banks and help provide adequate provisions for such liabilities.� Question:  Why RBI has chosen to ignore the fraud committed by SBI chairman during last 4 to 5 years for showing bloated/inflated profits , higher dividend/higher ROA/ ROE/ higher book value took investor or ride, looted them?. Whether AFIR conducted every year by RBI was an eye wash? Why Chairman/ ED  was allowed to loot  incentive of Rs 10 lacs when profits were manipulated and he has not achieved the target set by MOF in SOI. . The detailed analysis on SBI matter has been  sent to you (on 06.07.2011 through e-mail and hard copy by registered post.   Issue No 2  Why uniform guidelines today when the bank employees pension regulation 1995 which has parliamentary sanction, which have been vetted by RBI itself, already prescribed uniform guidelines for funding and administration of pension fund and pension liability?. Complete guidelines are already available with RBI because they have vetted them, which are mainly as under:    As per pension regulations 1995, 10% of pay as Statutory contribution every month should be deposited by bank in the pension fund trust.   In addition to above at the end of each year the bank shall carry out actuarial valuation  and Gap if any  shall  be met by the bank and deposited in the   pension fund.     As per 7th BPS the Bank has to deposit  from 01.11.1997 to 31.10.2002 Statutory 10% contribution +   Incremental cost of pension (Employees share 8.25%  Plus  Employer share 8.25% ) should be deposited   in pension fund. �    As per 8th BPS the Bank has to deposit  from from 01.11.2002 to 31.10.2007  Statutory  10% contribution + Incremental cost of pension (Employees share 9.25%  Plus Employer share 9.25% ) should be deposited in pension fund.     �As per 9th BPS the Bank has to deposit  from from 01.11.2007 to 31.10.2012  Statutory  10%   contribution + Incremental cost of pension (Employees share    13.00%  Plus Employer share 13.00% )    should be deposited in pension fund.   � As per 9th BPS one more option of pension to existing employees and the total liability on above account is Rs 6000 cr, out of which 4200 cr is to be borne by the banks and 1800 cr by employees. The banks have recovered Rs 1800 cr from the employees but not deposited/ their share of 4200 crores in the pension fund trust. Violation of above statutory obligations by the Banks, give right to RBI to issue fresh guidelines and accede to request for amortization? Question:  Whether Why RBI has ensured that Statutory & Regulatory Compliances are followed by Public Sector banks for above pension liability?. Whether RBI Compliance Policy is worthless when the banks are violating the law settled by  BPS, which have a parliamentary sanction? Whether RBI is choosing to  ignore the fraud committed by Chairman on pension fund & showing bloated/inflated profits , higher dividend/higher ROA/ ROE/ higher book value took investor or ride, looted them?. Whether AFIR conducted every year by RBI was an eye wash? Why Chairman�s/ EDs were allowed to loot  incentive of Rs 10 lacs when profits were manipulated and in fact they have not achieved the target set by MOF in SOI in the past years?.     Issue No 3  Amortization of the pension cost.  �          RBI circular No DBOD.No.BP.BC:80/21.04.018/2010-11 dated 09.02.2011 permitted amortization of enhanced expenditure of pension liability on account of new pension option under 9th BPS and amendment of Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 to banks, at the request of IBA  vide your guidelines on Prudential Regulatory Treatment.  Please note as per 9th BPS one more option of pension to existing employees  was given and the liability of Rs 4200 cr was  to be borne by the banks. 1/5th of Rs 4200 crs i.e. Rs 840 cr was to be charged in Profit and Loss in 2010-11 and remaining Rs3360  cr was to be charged to Profit & loss in remaining 4 years      Against Rs 4200 crs the banks have amortized Rs 19611 cr as per table given below:   Complete data is based on published result  as on 31.03.2011 is given below: S.No Name of  the Bank Pension Liability amortised  as per RBI guidelines as on 31.03.2011  ( in crore) Amount charged to  Profit & Loss for Existing  employees ( in  crore) Amount charged to  Profit & Loss for Retired  employees   ( in crore) Balance carried forward to be charged to PL in remaining -4- years ( in crore) 1 Allahabad Bank 468.31 93.66 53.20 374.65 2 Andhra Bank 708.07 141.61 Not reported 566.46 3 Bank of Baroda 1829.90 365.98 554.14 1463.92 4 Bank of India 2212.15 442.43 707.7 1769.72 5 Bank of Maharashtra 512.38 102.48 Not reported 409.90 6 Central Bank 1476.91 295.38 569.62 1181.43 7 Canara Bank 2373.12 493.28 259.45 1482.86 8 Corporation Bank 552.53 110.51 Not reported 442.02 9 Dena Bank  353.92 70.78 117.64 283.14 10       Indian Bank 153.06 813.22 148.38 650.62 11 IOB 758.65 151.73 188.28 606.92 12 OBC 854.50 170.90 150.85 683.60 13 PNB 2757.65 551.53 Not reported 2206.12 14 PSB 811.78 162.36 Not reported 649.42 15 Syndicate Bank 726.90 145.32 364.00 581.52 16 Union Bank of India 1690.21 338.04 375.65 1352.17 17 United Bank  of India 268.16 53.61 99.98 214.52 18 UCO Bank 507.84 101.56 265.06 408.28 19  Vijay Bank 595.53 119.11 Not reported 476.42   Total 19611.57 4723.49 3853.95 15803.67

Question:�       

  How RBI has permitted amortization of Rs 19611.57 cr against agreed pension liability of Rs 4200 crs as per 9^th BPS.

�         Whether RBI has authority to allow violation of Pension settlement/ violation of pension regulations which have parliamentary sanction.

�         Whether RBI knows that Banks have not deposited Rs 19611.57 cr in the pension fund . The banks are causing loss to the pension fund trust by not depositing their liability in the trust account. They are cheating the pension trust with a criminal intention to deny updation of pension.

�         What is he meaning of amortization?. When employees have deposited their share out of agreed pension liability in the pension fund, why RBI has allowed Banks to violate the settlement by not depositing Rs 19611.57 cr in pension fund.

 

Issue No 4

 Amortization of the pension cost: Accounting entries to be passed by Banks.

 

RBI circular No DBOD.No.BP.BC:80/21.04.018/2010-11 dated 09.02.2011 permitted amortization of enhanced expenditure of pension liability on account of new pension option.

We request RBI DBOD to clarify what entries bank should pass to implement your amortization guidelines.

We are of the opinion that Bank should pass the following entries:

�         Dr - Differed Pension Liability on account of New pension Option Rs 19611.57 cr

�        Cr - bank employees Pension Fund Trust Account

�        Dr  P/L Liability on account pension  1/5 of Rs 19611.57 cr � Every Year

�         Cr -Differed Pension Liability on account of New pension Option1/5 of Rs 19611.57 cr

 

The Banks have violated the pension settlement and have deposited on 1/5 of 19611.57 c in the pension fund. It has resulted in perpetual loss of interest/earning to the pension fund.  Amortization do not mean denial of due amount to pension fund trust.

We request RBI DBOD to clarify what entries bank should pass to implement your amortization guidelines?.

 

�      The RBI must take note of fraud in the pension fund trust of  bank employees  is more than Rs 30000 cr alone during 2010-11 (SBI Rs 10400 crores and PSBs Rs 19611.57 cr as clear from the above chart). Whether RBI AFIR is an eye wash? How you are ensuring compliance?.

�     The fraud on pension fund is being perpetuated since 01.11.1997 when 7^th BPS  for sharing of incremental cost was signed. Amount  of fraud is much higher because six banks viz  Andhra bank, Bank of Maharashtra., Corportion Bank,, PNB, PSB, Vijaya bank data  of retired employees is not available on their website). Have you taken note of it Mr Governor & Dy. Governor , CGM DBOD, CGM Dept of Banking supervision ?

  

Questions to RBI Governor/ Dy. Governor:

�      The RBI is carrying out Annual Financial Inspection (AFIR) of Banks every year. Is the AFIR of RBI  is an eye wash?

�      Whether  during the course of AFIR, RBI monitor that regulatory/ statutory compliances  have been followed by the bank?. (Please note that the depositing retirement dues are is statutory compliance).?

�     Whether RBI treat such misreporting in the balance sheet  & Profit & loss as fraud,  if not than why it is not. Do you follow different yardsticks for different Company. Satyam chairman in Jail.

�      Whether RBI has sent any special investigation team to SBI/ other PSBs to unearth the biggest scam in the pension fund trust of employees?.

�      Whether RBI has taken any action or advised to ICAI to initiate action against -SCAs of      SBI/ Other Banks who have certified the falsified balance sheet of past years?.

�      How incompetent CAs are finding there name in the panel approved by RBI?.

�      Whether RBI has reported to other regulator like SEBI, a watchdog to safeguard the    investors interest. How the investors have been taken for ride by misleading balance sheet in previous years?

�      Whether RBI has taken the matter with Institute  of Actuaries  to take action against actuaries who are giving reports which suits to then management? Have you asked the institute  to carry our independent investigation of pension liability and punish the wrong doer forgiving false actuarial valuation in the previous years.?.

�CBI has already prosecuted Hiranandani builders of Mumbai and Mr Raju of Satyam computers under 120 B (punishment for conspiracy)read with 409 (breach of trust) 420 cheating 467/468 forgery 471 use of forgery 477A falsification of accounts .

�Statutory Auditors are liable under company act/ IPC /CA act for gross negligence of professional duty, failure to report material misstatement. Price Water Coopers (PWC) an international Chartered Account Firm) have also been prosecuted by CBI in Satyam Scandal.

�   SEBI can prosecute under SEBI ACT because investors have been looted/cheated.

�    SFIO  can investigate under 235 to 247 of companies Act 1956. Please note that Satyam CMD/ Auditor/are s being prosecuted under above acts.

�      Whether RBI Governor/ Dy Governor feels that by merely issuing press statement will absolve them from their constitutional/regulatory liability?.

The above communication may please be taken note for compliance because this is part of judicial proceeding of various HC/ Supreme Court where pension issues are pending  and role of Regulator is under scrutiny.

Rajendra Kumar.Singhal

CONVENOR

FORUM FOR JUSTICE TO BANK EMPLOYEES AND OFFICERS.

Legal Aid Cell

Bhartiya Janta Party

11, Ashok Road

New Delhi-110001

rkumar...@rediffmail.com.rkumarsinghal@rediffmail.com

CC to Shri G. Jaganmohan Rao,CGM-in-Charge, Dept of banking supervison http://www.rbi.org.in/scripts/Bs_RbiEmailMaster.aspx?name=NKrishnaMohan

Shri B Mahapatra,Chief General Manager �in- Charge Department of Banking Operations and Development Mumbai � 400 005

 

Comments :  Do you feel the above comments are biased ?  If so, you can send your views alongwith the facts to counter the same so that bankers can have the real factual position. However, the comments should not be of any personal nature or against a group. You can submit your comments on : allbankin...@gmail.com

 Disclaimer : The views expressed here are the personal views of our readers and www.allbankingsolutions.com may not subscribe to such views.  The contents or data has not been verified / re-checked.  In case, any abuse is noticed, the same may be brought to our notice at allbankin...@gmail.com so that we c

--
D S MURTI

--
D S MURTI

[bass]

Dear Sir,

Thanks for repeating the message once again. The message appeared in
"allbankingsolutions.com" was shown in this forum on 10.09.2011 itself
by Mr.V.B.Kamath.

With regards
S.M.BASHA

On Sep 20, 1:55 pm, Srinivasa Murti Devulapalli

<devulapallimu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Please go through the content now being forwarded to you.   mind boggling
> facts are surfaced .  We, the bank retirees, we have got to apply our minds
> very seriously and consolidate ourselves for our collective well-being.

> h

>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Srinivasa Murti Devulapalli <devulapallimu...@gmail.com>
> Date: Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 2:17 PM
> Subject: Mind boggling facts for the bank pensioners/retirees

> To: devulapallimu...@yahoo.com, murt...@yahoo.com
>
> *
> *Reserve Bank of India

> Central Office Building
>
> Shahid Bhagat Singh Marg
> Central Office,

> Fort , Mumbai 400001*  *
>
> * Dear Sir*
>
>  *Re:   RBI wants uniform Pension provision in PSU banks? Really or allowing

> cover up of past loot of Employees pension fund by Bank Management and

> distribution of loot  as dividend/ incentive?*
>
> * *
>
> *All  issues listed below are based on fact which are verifiable from

> respective banks website and easily available at your end  being part of
> regulatory compliances submitted  by these banks to RBI and other

> regulators.** *
>
> *Issue No 1*

>
>  We refer to you re your comment   appearing in Business Standard  dated
> 14.07.2011 & 15.07.2011   Same Pension Provisions for the Banks Draws RBI
> Flak detailed as under:
>

> * After coming down heavily on banks for not making adequate provision for

> increased pension liabilities arising out of wage revision, the Reserve Bank
> of India (RBI) now wants all public sector banks to have uniform pension

> liabilities.*
>
> *According to sources in the banking industry, the central bank sees no

> reason why each public sector bank should have different pension
> liabilities, since the inputs which go into calculation of pension provision

> are nearly the same.*
>
> * RBI says the salary structure is same, the mortality rate is similar and
> the attrition rate is almost the same for all government-owned banks** at

> around 0.5 per cent. There is no reason for different actuarial estimates
> for banks. It feels all public sector banks should have similar actuarial

> estimates,** said a banker after discussing the matter with RBI officials.

> The basic pension of retirees from all government banks is 50 per cent of

> the last salary drawn.*
>
> *Bankers said actuaries of different banks have different estimates,

> particularly on parameters like the discount rate and the attrition rate for
> calculating pension liability, which has led to a variation in the burden.
> As far as the mortality rate is concerned, most banks follow Life Insurance

> Corporation of India's estimates.*
>
> *The pension provision issue cropped up in the last quarter of the previous

> financial year, when State Bank of India (SBI) had sought the regulator's
> approval for pension provision from the bank's capital reserve for wage
> increases. As a prudential practice, banks make provision out of their
> profit and loss account. To use capital reserves for provision, banks need

> RBI's approval. After RBI** s approval, SBI charged nearly Rs 8,000 crore
> from its reserves to provide for pension liabilities. As a result, SBI** s
> capital eroded, with Tier-I capital falling below eight per cent.*
>
> *Though RBI had allowed SBI to make provisions from reserves for pension

> liabilities, the regulator had made it clear that such requests would not be
> entertained in the future. The central bank had come down heavily on the

> bank** s chairman and managing directors at an interaction. The regulator

> had also made it clear such practices were non-compliant with International

> Financial Reporting Standards.*
>
> * In 2010-11, provisioning had increased sharply because of the pay

> revisions agreed during the ninth bipartite settlement. Wages were raised
> 17.5 per cent and a second pension option was given to both current and
> retired employees. Gratuity limits were also increased from Rs 3.5 lakh to
> Rs 10 lakh. According to RBI's financial stability report, the expected
> additional liability for 24 public sector banks was Rs 30,366 crore, which
> constituted 81.9 per cent of their net profit for 2009-10. Indian Banks'
> Association has been mandated by RBI to prepare a pension scheme to
> facilitate the assessment by banks and help provide adequate provisions for

> such liabilities.** *
>
> *Question:  Why RBI has chosen to ignore the fraud committed by SBI chairman

> during last 4 to 5 years for showing bloated/inflated profits , higher
> dividend/higher ROA/ ROE/ higher book value took investor or ride, looted
> them?. Whether AFIR conducted every year by RBI was an eye wash? Why
> Chairman/ ED  was allowed to loot  incentive of Rs 10 lacs when profits were
> manipulated and he has not achieved the target set by MOF in SOI. . The
> detailed analysis on SBI matter has been  sent to you (on 06.07.2011 through

> e-mail and hard copy by registered post. *
>
> * *
>
> *Issue No 2*
>
> * **Why uniform guidelines today when the bank employees pension regulation

> 1995 which has parliamentary sanction, which have been vetted by RBI itself,
> already prescribed uniform guidelines for funding and administration of
> pension fund and pension liability?. Complete guidelines are already
> available with RBI because they have vetted them, which are mainly as under:

> *
>
> * As per pension regulations 1995, 10% of pay as Statutory contribution
> every month should be deposited by bank in the pension fund trust. *
>
> *  In addition to above at the end of each year the bank shall carry out
> actuarial valuation  and Gap if any *
>
> * shall  be met by the bank and deposited in the   pension fund. *
>
> *  As per 7th BPS the Bank has to deposit  from 01.11.1997 to 31.10.2002
> Statutory 10% contribution + *
>
> *  Incremental cost of pension (Employees share 8.25%  Plus  Employer share
> 8.25% ) should be deposited *
>
> *  in pension fund. *
>
> * *
>
> *  As per 8th BPS the Bank has to deposit  from from 01.11.2002 to
> 31.10.2007  Statutory  10% *
>
> *contribution + Incremental cost of pension (Employees share 9.25%  Plus
> Employer share 9.25% ) *
>
> *should be deposited in pension fund.*
>
> * *
>
> * *
>
> * As per 9th BPS the Bank has to deposit  from from 01.11.2007 to 31.10.2012
>  Statutory  10% *
>
> *  contribution + Incremental cost of pension (Employees share    13.00%
> Plus Employer share 13.00% )*
>
> *   should be deposited in pension fund.*
>
> * *
>
> * As per 9th BPS one more option of pension to existing employees and the

> total liability on above account is Rs 6000 cr, out of which 4200 cr is to
> be borne by the banks and 1800 cr by employees. The banks have recovered Rs
> 1800 cr from the employees but not deposited/ their share of 4200 crores in

> the pension fund trust.*
>
> *Violation of above statutory obligations by the Banks, give right to RBI to
> issue fresh guidelines and accede to request for amortization?*
>
> *Question:  Whether Why RBI has ensured that Statutory & Regulatory

> Compliances are followed by Public Sector banks for above pension
> liability?. Whether RBI Compliance Policy is worthless when the banks are
> violating the law settled by  BPS, which have a parliamentary sanction?
> Whether RBI is choosing to  ignore the fraud committed by Chairman on
> pension fund & showing bloated/inflated profits , higher dividend/higher
> ROA/ ROE/ higher book value took investor or ride, looted them?. Whether

> AFIR conducted every year by RBI was an eye wash?*

>
> Why Chairman s/ EDs were allowed to loot  incentive of Rs 10 lacs when
> profits were manipulated and in fact they have not achieved the target set
> by MOF in SOI in the past years?.
>

> * *
>
> *Issue No 3*
>
> * **Amortization of the pension cost.*
>
> * **          RBI circular No DBOD.No.BP.BC:80/21.04.018/2010-11 dated

> 09.02.2011 permitted amortization of enhanced expenditure of pension
> liability on account of new pension option under 9th BPS and amendment of
> Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 to banks, at the request of IBA  vide your

> guidelines on Prudential Regulatory Treatment.*
>
> * Please note as per 9th BPS one more option of pension to existing

> employees  was given and the liability of Rs 4200 cr was  to be borne by the
> banks. 1/5th of Rs 4200 crs i.e. Rs 840 cr was to be charged in Profit and
> Loss in 2010-11 and remaining Rs3360  cr was to be charged to Profit & loss

> in remaining 4 years*
>
> *     Against Rs 4200 crs the banks have amortized Rs 19611 cr as per table
> given below:*
>
> * *
>
> *Complete data is based on published result  as on 31.03.2011 is given
> below:*
>
> *S.No*
>
> *Name of  the Bank*
>
> *Pension Liability amortised  as per RBI guidelines as on 31.03.2011*
>
> * ( in crore)*
>
> *Amount charged to  Profit & Loss for Existing  employees*
>
> *( in  crore)*
>
> *Amount charged to  Profit & Loss for *
>
> *Retired  employees*
>
> * *
>
> *( in crore)*
>
> *Balance carried forward to be charged to PL in remaining -4- years ( in
> crore)*
>
> *1*
>
> *Allahabad Bank*
>
> *468.31*
>
> *93.66*
>
> *53.20*
>
> *374.65*
>
> *2*
>
> *Andhra Bank*
>
> *708.07*
>
> *141.61*
>
> *Not reported*
>
> *566.46*
>
> *3*
>
> *Bank of Baroda*
>
> *1829.90*
>
> *365.98*
>
> *554.14*
>
> *1463.92*
>
> *4*
>
> *Bank of India*
>
> *2212.15*
>
> *442.43*
>
> *707.7*
>
> *1769.72*
>
> *5*
>
> *Bank of Maharashtra*
>
> *512.38*
>
> *102.48*
>
> *Not reported*
>
> *409.90*
>
> *6*
>
> *Central Bank*
>
> *1476.91*
>
> *295.38*
>
> *569.62*
>
> *1181.43*
>
> *7*
>
> *Canara Bank*
>
> *2373.12*
>
> *493.28*
>
> *259.45*
>
> *1482.86*
>
> *8*
>
> *Corporation Bank*
>
> *552.53*
>
> *110.51*
>
> *Not reported*
>
> *442.02*
>
> *9*
>
> *Dena Bank  *
>
> *353.92*
>
> *70.78*
>
> *117.64*
>
> *283.14*
>
> *10*
>
> * *
>
> * *
>
> * *
>
> *Indian Bank *
>
> *153.06*
>
> *813.22*
>
> *148.38*
>
> *650.62*
>
> *11*
>
> *IOB *
>
> *758.65*
>
> *151.73*
>
> *188.28*
>
> *606.92*
>
> *12*
>
> *OBC*
>
> *854.50*
>
> *170.90*
>
> *150.85*
>
> *683.60*
>
> *13*
>
> *PNB *
>
> *2757.65*
>
> *551.53*
>
> *Not reported *
>
> *2206.12*
>
> *14*
>
> *PSB*
>
> *811.78*
>
> *162.36*
>
> *Not reported *
>
> *649.42*
>
> *15*
>
> *Syndicate Bank*
>
> *726.90*
>
> *145.32*
>
> *364.00*
>
> *581.52*
>
> *16*
>
> *Union Bank of India*
>
> *1690.21*
>
> *338.04*
>
> *375.65*
>
> *1352.17*
>
> *17*
>
> *United Bank  of India*
>
> *268.16*
>
> *53.61*
>
> *99.98*
>
> *214.52*
>
> *18*
>
> *UCO Bank*
>
> *507.84*
>
> *101.56*
>
> *265.06*
>
> *408.28*
>
> *19*
>
> * Vijay Bank *
>
> *595.53*
>
> *119.11*
>
> *Not reported *
>
> *476.42*
>
> * *
>
> *Total*
>
> *19611.57*
>
> *4723.49*
>
> *3853.95*
>
> *15803.67*
>
> * *
>
> * *
>
> * *
>
> * *
>
> * *
>
> * *
>
> *Question:** **       *
>
> *  **How RBI has permitted amortization of Rs 19611.57 cr against agreed
> pension liability of Rs 4200 crs as per 9th BPS.*
>
> * **         **Whether RBI has authority to allow violation of Pension

> settlement/ violation of pension regulations which have parliamentary

> sanction.*
>
> * **         **Whether RBI knows that Banks have not deposited Rs 19611.57

> cr in the pension fund . The banks are causing loss to the pension fund
> trust by not depositing their liability in the trust account. They are
> cheating the pension trust with a criminal intention to deny updation of

> pension.*
>
> * **         **What is he meaning of amortization?. When employees have

> deposited their share out of agreed pension liability in the pension fund,
> why RBI has allowed Banks to violate the settlement by not depositing Rs

> 19611.57 cr in pension fund. *
>
> * *
>
> *Issue No 4*
>
> * **Amortization of the pension cost: Accounting entries to be passed by
> Banks.*
>
> * *
>
> *RBI circular No DBOD.No.BP.BC:80/21.04.018/2010-11 dated 09.02.2011

> permitted amortization of enhanced expenditure of pension liability on

> account of new pension option.*
>
> *We request RBI DBOD to clarify what entries bank should pass to implement
> your amortization guidelines.*
>
> *We are of the opinion that Bank should pass the following entries:*
>
> *         Dr - Differed Pension Liability on account of New pension Option
> Rs 19611.57 cr*
>
> *        Cr - bank employees Pension Fund Trust Account*
>
> *        Dr  P/L Liability on account pension  1/5 of Rs 19611.57 cr
> ** Every Year
> *
>
> *         Cr -Differed Pension Liability on account of New pension
> Option1/5 of Rs 19611.57 cr*
>
> * *
>
> *The Banks have violated the pension settlement and have deposited on 1/5 of

> 19611.57 c in the pension fund. It has resulted in perpetual loss of
> interest/earning to the pension fund.  Amortization do not mean denial of

> due amount to pension fund trust.*
>
> *We request RBI DBOD to clarify what entries bank should pass to implement
> your amortization guidelines?.*
>
> * *
>
> *      The RBI must take note of fraud in the pension fund trust of  bank

> employees  is more than Rs 30000 cr alone during 2010-11 (SBI Rs 10400
> crores and PSBs Rs 19611.57 cr as clear from the above chart). Whether RBI

> AFIR is an eye wash? How you are ensuring compliance?.*
>
> *     The fraud on pension fund is being perpetuated since 01.11.1997 when

> 7th BPS  for sharing of incremental cost was signed. Amount  of fraud is
> much higher because six banks viz  Andhra bank, Bank of Maharashtra.,
> Corportion Bank,, PNB, PSB, Vijaya bank data  of retired employees is not
> available on their website). Have you taken note of it Mr Governor & Dy.

> Governor , CGM DBOD, CGM Dept of Banking supervision ?*
>
> *Questions to RBI Governor/ Dy. Governor:*
>
> *      The RBI is carrying out Annual Financial Inspection (AFIR) of Banks
> every year. Is the AFIR of RBI  is an eye wash?*
>
> *      Whether  during the course of AFIR, RBI monitor that regulatory/

> statutory compliances  have been followed by the bank?. (Please note that

> the depositing retirement dues are is statutory compliance).? *
>
> *     Whether RBI treat such misreporting in the balance sheet  & Profit &

> loss as fraud,  if not than why it is not. Do you follow different

> yardsticks for different Company. Satyam chairman in Jail.*
>
> *      Whether RBI has sent any special investigation team to SBI/ other
> PSBs to unearth the biggest scam in the pension fund trust of employees?.*
>
> *      Whether RBI has taken any action or advised to ICAI to initiate

> action against -SCAs of      SBI/ Other Banks who have certified the

> falsified balance sheet of past years?.*
>
> *      How incompetent CAs are finding there name in the panel approved by
> RBI?.*
>
> *      Whether RBI has reported to other regulator like SEBI, a watchdog to

> safeguard the    investors interest. How the investors have been taken for

> ride by misleading balance sheet in previous years?*
>
> *      Whether RBI has taken the matter with Institute  of Actuaries  to

> take action against actuaries who are giving reports which suits to then
> management? Have you asked the institute  to carry our independent
> investigation of pension liability and punish the wrong doer forgiving false

> actuarial valuation in the previous years.?.*
>
> * CBI has already prosecuted Hiranandani builders of Mumbai and Mr Raju of

> Satyam computers under 120 B (punishment for conspiracy)read with 409
> (breach of trust) 420 cheating 467/468 forgery 471 use of forgery 477A

> falsification of accounts . *
>
> * Statutory Auditors are liable under company act/ IPC /CA act for gross

> negligence of professional duty, failure to report material misstatement.
> Price Water Coopers (PWC) an international Chartered Account Firm) have also

> been prosecuted by CBI in Satyam Scandal.*
>
> *   SEBI can prosecute under SEBI ACT because investors have been
> looted/cheated. *
>
> *    SFIO  can investigate under 235 to 247 of companies Act 1956. Please
> note that Satyam CMD/ Auditor/are s being prosecuted under above acts. *
>
> *      Whether RBI Governor/ Dy Governor feels that by merely issuing press

> statement will absolve them from their constitutional/regulatory liability?.

> *
>
> *The above communication may please be taken note for compliance because

> this is part of judicial proceeding of various HC/ Supreme Court where

> pension issues are pending  and role of Regulator is under scrutiny.*
>
> *Rajendra Kumar.Singhal*
>
> *CONVENOR*
>
> *FORUM FOR JUSTICE TO BANK EMPLOYEES AND OFFICERS.*
>
> *Legal Aid Cell*
>
> *Bhartiya Janta Party*
>
> *11, Ashok Road*
>
> *New Delhi-110001*
>
> *rkumarsing...@rediffmail.com.rkumarsinghal@rediffmail.com*<rkumarsing...@rediffmail.com.rkumarsinghal@rediffmail.com>
>
> *CC to Shri G. Jaganmohan Rao,CGM-in-Charge, Dept of banking supervisonhttp://www.rbi.org.in/scripts/Bs_RbiEmailMaster.aspx?name=NKrishnaMohan*
>
> *Shri B Mahapatra,Chief General Manager ** in- Charge** Department of
> Banking Operations and Development Mumbai ** 400 005*
>
> *Comments :*  Do you feel the above comments are biased ?  If so, you can

> send your views alongwith the facts to counter the same so that bankers can
> have the real factual position. However, the comments should not be of any
> personal nature or against a group.
>

> *You can submit your comments on : allbankingsoluti...@gmail.com*

>
>  Disclaimer : The views expressed here are the personal views of our readers

> andwww.allbankingsolutions.commay not subscribe to such views.  The

> contents or data has not been verified / re-checked.  In case, any abuse is
> noticed, the same may be brought to our notice at

> allbankingsoluti...@gmail.com so that we c

[Prasad C N]

Dear friends,

Please stop hate mails.  I have written some valid comments and opinion to Allbanking Solutions. The same was not published.  If you want your article/write up to be published, you need to send article/mails accusing bank managements/Unions.  

But, unfortunately, right comments do not draw attention.  Take the example of the article, where it is stated that 

'Really or allowing cover up of past loot of Employees pension fund'.  

Please let the author explain who has looted that money.  If we even assume that there was deliberate under-provision, then who are the beneficiary.  Beneficiaries include every employee including employees who were in service during that period.  Higher load in BPS and allocation to Staff Welfare Fund is part of this loot.  Please correct me, if I am wrong.  I will add further that some of those who have commented extensively on this article, without even understanding the background, might have been the beneficiaries of this loot.  The Government of India is a major beneficiary of this loot.  This is because, their share holding is more than 51% in all Public Sector Banks.  Which means, the Government of India has taken away more than Rs.10,000/- crores.

This loot would have been much more, if every one of those who opted for Pension now were to opt for pension during 1995.  

Please ask the author of the article to explain How this under provision is going to affect pensioners.  Can you expect more pension, if they were to allocate this portion earlier.  I request the knowledgeable members to explain, how we are affected by this under provision.

Please read, understand and then comment.  Everything bad about the banks/unions are not good always. 

 

Thanks, a Million.

With regards,
Prasad C N

---

From: bass <basha...@rediffmail.com>
To: bankpensioner <bankpe...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 20 September 2011 3:02 PM
Subject: bankpensioner Re: Fwd: Mind boggling facts for the bank pensioners/retirees

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bankpensioner" group.
To post to this group, send an email to bankpe...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bankpensioner+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bankpensioner?hl=en-GB.

[J SOMASEKARA]

Mr.Prasad I can understand your point.

However please consider the following points.

If anybody writes against Unions/Managements it is not hate mail. 

It is out of pure frustration.  

Introducing Pension in Banks is neither historic 

or amazing achievement.  Most of the

organisations either of the one benefit is provided.  I

n banks also pension is not additional

benefit but it is in lieu of PF.  Since AIBEA was not in 

favour of Pension at that time we can assume

that their role in getting pension introduced in 1995 

is not significant.

Many employees who did not opt for pension at that time 

say they did so because of advise from AIBEA.

I have a circular by Canara Bank Employees Union issued during pension option at that time.

The circular compared benefits of PF amd Pension. Any body who go through that circular gets the impression

that PF is far better than pension.

In future I do not know  but even as as on date of second option viz 2010,  the figures they predicted did not happen.

I feel the circular was not necessary at that time. When you are not capable of giving good counselling it is better to

leave it to the discretion of employees/officers.

Many argue that employees should have used discretion.  But situation during 1995 is entirely diffarent.

No cell phone. No internet.  No nteraction with employees of other banks. No awreness among employees that we are being exploited.

Only information regarding our service conditions was through union circular. AIBEA was like god.  We were not able to know there

exists far better service condition in other organisations. Unions  claimed every small benefit as historic.

Taking correct decision at that time was difficult for many employees. So many relied upon unions.

Further I am of the opinion that instead of fixing dead line for opting pension option, it should have been a continuous process.

Later these PF optees realised their mistake. But managements continuously refused giving second option and suddenly agreed

during 9 BPS. There are accusations that management agreed only to reduce 9 BPS wage increase. 

Here unions cannot take any credit for this because pension agreement istself is flawed.

I HAVE SOME DOUBTS REGARDING UNIONS/MAMAGEMENTS. I WANT CLARRIFICATIONS.

1. Pension regulations provides that an employees opting for VRS  and completed 20 years of service is eligible for

    additional 5 years of sevice added to his service to arrive at qualifying service for pension purposes.

    Most of the banks circulars inviting application for SVRS clearly stated that for pension optees all pensionary benefits will be

    available. 

    However after submitting VRS option bank issed circular that this is Special VRS so 5 years additional service not eligible.

    Can anybody give me evidence of unions taking objection to this ? Unions were completely silent. This was a major deviation

    of pension regulation and violation of banks VRS circular. Why unions were not interested.

    Betrayal No. 1

2.  From the very first month of penion banks cheated pensioners.

    Instead of fixing basic pension pay taking in to account basic pay+DA and special allownces as existed during last months of service

    IBA fixed basic pension merging at 1616 points intesd of 1884.

    Between 2001 -2004 as we observe today many WP filed by pensioners against this cheating. Where were the unions at that time.

    Is there any evidence that unions issued any circular against this or fighting for same. IBA realising that one day courts will definitely

   give verdict in favour of pensioners cunningly joined hands with Unions to prepare a joint note to give effect rhis benefit from 01.05.2005.

   However I think I do not find even remotely any honest motive of unions in signing such an agreement. Cases were already pending in court.

   If unions had taken a tough stand in favour of pensioners matter would have settled amicably. When commutation rules provide that maximum of 

   1/3 pension can be commuted how can any responsible organisation sugn such an agreement denying commutation.

   Betrayal NO.2

3. 100% DA Neutralisation.

    When IBA extended 100% DA neutralisation to employees retiring after 01.11.2002 it shoukd have been uniformly applied to all retirees irrespective of

    date of retirement. 

    Even here I do not  have any evidence of unions maling any attempt to set right this anomaly.

    Betrayal No. 3

4. Pension Updation.

   In banks we have bipartite settlements. Unions prepare charter of demands and start negotiations. As it progress IBA slowly takes control and see that

   unions sign on dotted lines. This the opinion of majority of bank men, I think this is not without basis. We feel unions are in hurry to close deal forgetting

   finer details. Pension agreement signed during 1995 is one example.

   Before entering into agreement unions should have studied pension schemes  of other organisations, should have interacted with experts. If they have done so

   they could not have missed major life sustaining feature of any pension schme viz Pension Updation. They have signed an agreement which contains a clause

   that if any doubt Central Govt Pension rules shall be referred.  At least if they had ensured that atleast feaures of central government pension scheme included

   it would have been a right step.

   Because of thir mistake now it is a herculean task to get pension updation.

   Another example is recent second pension option agreement. After signing second option agreement unions claimed that all VRS, CRS optees are eligible for

   second pension option. 

   However IBA promptly denied second pension oprion for penioners other than SVRS optees.

   Here what is the truth. Whether IBA is taking employees for ride or Unions playing games. Unions had many sittings with IBA during second pension option.

   During that negotiations whether really IBA has agreed for second pension option all retirees. Or unions simply gave false information to PF optees that IBA has

   agreed. IBA says as per agreement only SVRS retrees available. Are unions have any system of understanding the legal implications of the agreements they are

   signing? As IBA has again and again denying benefits provided in these agreements such doubts arise.

   Betrayal No.4

  Unions betrayed  us again and again. For IBA pensioners are untouchables. Whatever we give you take that was the attitude. However you try to defend unions

  there is no second thought that Unions betrayed pensioners 100%. Since 2001-2010 many pensioners are fighting court battles not for extra facilities but for basic

  pension benefits signed by IBA and unions. Are unions not ware of these court cases? Instead of half cooked joint notes, if they are genuine they would have

  taken pensioners problem  seriously. 

 During these 10 years two BPS happened. Not a single demand of pensioners taken up. Atleast 100% DA for all demand should have been included in 9 BPS

 at least. 

 No because no income from pensioners. We are not giving monthly subscriptions and levy. So we were useless for them. It a pity that even after signing such

 flawed second pension agreement like contribution from pensioners to pension fund unions try to get levy from pensioners. 

Because of the effort of few retirees who fought in Supreme court   we have got arrears regarding 5 years addition case. 

Now because of advent of technology we have been able to gather information from all sources at fingertips and in a better position to see through the games palyed by IBA

and Unions. We no longer depend on union circulars. So many members realised that we have been exploited and openly express their opinions freely.

Unions also realised that they can no longer fool people.  Now they are posing as our souviers. Once bitten twice shy . I feel it is better not to getting into trap again.

If they are really worried aboutt pensioners let them take followinfg demands serously wiyh IBA/Government. They do not require separate unions for this.

They are still recignised unions in banks.

1. Second Pension Option for all

2. Impementatation of High court judgments-50% Pay.

3. 100% DA for all.

4. Pension Updation

5.Extending 5 years additional benefits to all  retirees of all bankswho have completed 20 years of service.

Except pension updatation all other issues should be taken up immediately by unions and settle it within a period of 3 months as already court verdict has been given.

Unions writing letters to IBA is meaningless. Let them ask for special meeting with IBA to sort out these demands. I do not think it will happen.

Mr.Prasad, we have served more than 30 years in banks and paid monthly subscriptions and levy to these unions.  Try waiting letters to these unions regarding these issues

cetainly they will be thrown intowaste  basket.  IBA also take the same stand and do not entertain pensioners. It is a herculean task to contact government.

Even after 10 years of retirement, and even after court verdict justice has not been done. We are frustrated. 

Many years back we had no opportunty to express our anger, frustration and despair. I think however it is not proper for group members to personally target other members.

However expressing our opinion against unions  without being indecent is natural. They deserve it.

Regarding  not making provisions periodically by banks I am unable to comment as I do not have sufficient knowledge about the same. However now there is demand for

Pension Updation. There is apprehension among retirees that if banks make provision at a time now IBA may convince courts that since already huge pension liablities are

there they are unable to accede to demand of Pension updation. Further if pension fund is not properly managed there is danger of

IBA asking more and more funds from BPS and it frustrates reguale remployees as wellas not good for retirees. However I am not sure about this.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bankpensione...@googlegroups.com.

[BHASKARAN VARADHARAJAN]

Mr.Prasad,

I fully agree with you. It is the big blunder done by our own colleagues who have not opted pension when it was introduced during the year 1995.I know how much advice I have given to our own colleagues , at that time they laughed at me and advised me that they will be getting more by opting P.F.. Now they realised pension is  better than P.F., when the ROI for P,F is reduced. For our own mistake why should we blame others.

With regards

Bhaskaran.V

 
 

[PARASURAMAN K R]

Dear Som,  

Your mail is a true reflection of the sentiments of bank retirees against the callous attitude and bad treatment meted out by the unions and IBA, especially towards SVRS/VRS retirees. You may note that AIBEA was dead against VRS Scheme due to political reason and had tried hard to persuade its members from opting VRS. So they altogether washed off their hands in protecting the interest of the SVRS optees as lakhs of employees preferred to come out of banks based on their individual need and assessment of the scheme. Please note that the majority of the pre-2002 retirees are SVRS optees. 

There was some change in their attitude with the retirees winning cases in courts especially the 5-year weightage case in Supreme Court. They began to recognize their folly  and slowly started extending friendship with SVRS/VRS retirees. Moreover they wanted to increase the membership of retirees union supported by them. They demanded 2nd option only because of some selfish interest as nearly 2.5 lakhs members in the UFBU were out of the scheme. They also devised plans to extort retirees with the additional burden of  56% of PF contribution in collusion with IBA. These are all open secrets.

Now we are compelled to support the UFBU because we have no representation in the Bi-partite negotiation. Unfortunately we have to play second fiddle to these so called protectors and the 10th bi-partite provides another opportunity for these saviors to cheat the retirees. At the most they may agree for 100% DA neutralization prospectively saying that the load factor does not permit any up-dation.

 

 The present leadership of the retirees union mainly consists of those who retired on superannuation enjoying benefits such 100% DA, medical benefits etc etc. The main argument put forth by the retirees union leadership is that there is no separate allocation of funds for the welfare measures of retirees due the cap fixed by the government. If the leadership is having any sympathy for lakhs of SVRs employees they should ask the UFBU and IBA to immediately settle issues such as 100% DA, 50% BP, and ask for separate 2% towards welfare measures of bank retirees, without waiting for the 10th bi-partite settlement. I don't know what they have discussed in the CC meeting of AIBRF held at Mangalore on 17th and 18th of this month. The AIBRF website is not at all up-dated.

In the meanwhile let us not loose hope and pray for some favorable judgement from courts. Let us pray for long life to enjoy the benefits of the long-drawn legal battle.

Parasuraman.K.R.

Trichur

[lakshmanan shankarnaraynan]

Dear Friends,

 

All these facts have been brought out by me in my earlier emails. There is absolutely useless discussing the failures of unions/associations now as they will not serve any purpose. My question is that even now they continue to be silent on many important issues concerning the pensioners.

 

1.Even after a favourable verdict from the Supreme Court the benefit of addition of 5years is not extended to some of the retirees. Pension regulation 29(5) is never amended.Unions/associations are represented in the Boards of the Banks. They simply watch.

 

2.Banks clearly discriminate between various classes of pensioners denying benefits, all happening under the very nose of the unions/associations.

 

3.DA neutralisation is made effectve progressively and not  from the date of retirement thereby denying the poor pensioners arrears. But even commutation of pension arrears is not given.

 

All said and done, atleast now they can rise to the occasion to do something. In many banks the retirees forum has been promoted by these unions and associations. They can be asked to implead as parties to the various cases pending in the Supreme Court so that the benefits could be extended to all the pensioners in case of favourable verdicts.

 

 

S.Lakshmanan(IB-SVRS2001)

[perumal maruthu]

Dear Somasekar,

I am shocked to read your mail completely misrepresenting facts. Perhaps, you are mistaking Aibea for Aiboc for all of their false propaganda against pension in 1992-95. No one in this Forum or elsewhere tried to spread FALSEHOOD this much. Except yourself everyone will agree that only Aibea and Aiboa  demanded for Pension even as II benefit in the early Ninetiees.

. All other Unions,viz AIBOC/BEFI/NOBW/etc strongly opposed it as they demanded pension as III benefit as in SBI but their Leaders chose pension as II benefit. Pl ask any PF-optee, he will vouchsafe for this truth. I am also from CanaraBank. Can you produce a single circular issued aginst Pension by CBOU/CBEU? Pl note it is very easy to spread falsehood and rumours but it takes very hard efforts to see the truth. Pl send a corrected version of your mail otherwise people may dub it as 'good stuff of bluff''.

Regarding the later part of your mail: while you have freedom to express your views, that frredom does not entail you to paint a completely onesided picture as if the pensioners have lost everything on earth and only AIBEA is not doing anything as though AIBOC is doing everything. For example, you have conveniently fogotten the truth about updation. Unless updation issue is solved at RBI , it is very difficult to achieveit in Banks.

Regarding your views on 5 years Notional weightage : I have also expressed similar opinions in this Forum that the Unions should not have kept silent

100% DA neutralization: Not yet done at RBI. Matter is being pursued by all. We have to wait till we get SC's verdict.

One more option for all:  Signed on dotted lines?  No union thought of dispute over the clause 'pension for all'.

If it is a TOTAL surrender, why did in SBI, all unions demanded 6.5% of Basic to be paid as monthly PENSION BALANCING COST'?. Is it Aibea that signed a settlement in SBI and betrayed other bank employees?

I am at a loss why people take a biased stand and try and to attribute every deficiency only to AIBEA.

Why they refuse to discuss 6.5%?

My request to you is please be unbiased and try to know the CORRECTNESS of  any issue before passing a judgment/misleading anyone. Already in the past enough bad campaign made by some vested interests had been ruined enough.They are being resurrected; pl don't pull them down from under the rug. Pl avoid finding fault with the Right union for wrong reasons.

 

M.Perumal

CB_-SVRS

From: J SOMASEKARA <jsomase...@gmail.com>
To: bankpe...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, 21 September 2011 3:01 AM
Subject: Re: bankpensioner Mind boggling facts for the bank pensioners/retirees

[Veeraswami V]

In north India AIBOC MADE A BIG propaganda against, pension. So also BEFITTING OPPOSED PENSION. Now we talk about second option and Befitting AIBOC  say second option their achievement

Veeraswami. V

Sent from my iPad

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bankpensioner" group.
To post to this group, send an email to bankpe...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bankpensione...@googlegroups.com.

[ravi jain]

sir,

AIBOC is 100% right when it  say "second option their achievement". AIBEA & AIBOA was already in favour of pension in 1995. BEFI & AIBOC was right at that time about calculating PF amount to be received keeping in view prevailing interest rates at that time. now when they thought that calculation has gone wrong due to softening of interest rates then they demanded pension option, by forcing AIBEA & AIBOA and other unions to touch their line, and got it. we are boasting that we took it in 1995. now they are equal to us. had interset rates regime remained the same of 1995 they would have defenitely not asked for pension option. it means they are in commanding position vis-vis other unions. i may add that i am personally against double standard of AIBOC by giving additional benefit to their employees in SBI but keeping in view their performance to dictate other unions touch their line i may add that we should write/associate them also for updation/ DA neutralisation etc. and should not think of their other activities. we should not make it issue by making them untouchable. i personally will support any unions which at least raise demand for us at some levels.grabe the occasion is today's philosphy. 

be happy,

ravi jain (PSB)    

[bass]

Dear Somasekara Sir,

Very good. Matured talk. Your expressions are very realistic. If
anybody want to differ with the above views, I request them first to
do some homework and find out the reasons and then comment.

It is not the one voice of Mr.Somasekara, hundreds, thousands and
lakhs of bank employees feelings. Even the great union leaders also
agreed the facts and expressed their inability in getting minimum and
reasonable benefit from IBA against the demand. If anybody feels that
the achievement of 12.25 and 17.5% in the last two BPS, it is their
amaturity and cheap vision against the things happening surrounding
us. When the average inflation ruling is 7%, the minimum benefit must
be 35% for a five year period of BPS. But when negotiating, we have to
ask for more, by discounting the future inflation, as the settlement
is for future 5 years. With this vision, our leaders are rightly
putting their demands to around 40% which is highly realistic. But
during the course of negotiations, due to pressure tactics of IBA/GOI,
short sighted visionaries views of some union leaders (who never
depend on the salary) and the time factor, the top and intelligent
cadre of our genuine leaders, were surrendering and compromising for
an amicable settlement. If anybody does not know what is inflation and
how and on what basis we have to bargain for higher future salary, I
pity with them.

Even now, our unions are very strong and one section of gems are there
at the top level, who can visualise the past and future and prepare
the demands for us. But the short knowledged leaders, who want to show
their dominance with individual ego, are spoiling the picture. They
believe that 17.5% benefit is historical and well sufficient for the
performing duties. They never try to come out from the old school of
thoughts and see the present trend and can not can not can not
discount the future while bargaining, which is the minimum common
sense for any trade union.

In this forum what Mr.Ravi Jain and Mr.Somashekara are expressing the
views are 100% correct and nobody need to find fault with them and
their views. They also need not give explanation to anybody. This
forum is meant (for that sake any forum of employees) for discussing
the possibilities of better future, whatever rosy it may be, and to
attract positive opinions. Under any circumstances, we should not
undermine ourselves and should not discourage the right opinions.
Instead of that better to develop to respect the creative ideas given
by the members and pro activate the others with maturity our
experiences and if possible try to address the views of them at an
appropriate forum at higher level duly convincing the top heads. But
our members expressions are genuine (need not describe them as
frustrations) and deserve for better and positive discussion for the
information of all members, who can not raise their voices and write
articles, due to various reasons.

Let us prove our maturity by respecting all pending demands, whatever
they may be, treating them as genuine because they are all genuine
only and come to the rescue with our influences to solve all these
issues. If we ourselves condemn the pending demands, describing them
as vague attaching with cost factor, wrong comparision, anti union
etc. etc.,(and also to cover their inefficiency to understand and
solve) what is the use of discussions in this forum ?

I request Mr Somasekara Sir, to remind the demands of pensioners,
periodically, so as to enable our members to remember them, at least.

With regards
S.M.BASHA

> On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 11:00 PM, Prasad C N ...
>
> read more »

[sureshbhat M]

Mr.Ravi Jain 

   Your mail itself exposes the truth.

"now when they thought that calculation has gone wrong due to softening of interest rates then they demanded pension option, by forcing AIBEA & AIBOA and other unions to touch their line"

     But unfortunately you are wrong in stating that "by forcing aibea and aiboa"- as these two Unions were/are never against to Pension scheme even till today and there was no question of forcing them.  After knowing the faults in calculations if AIBOC corrected itself and forced other unions -except aibea and aiboa, we have no comments.  AIBOC  achived second option is  the correct statement-BUT ONLY WHEN YOU ACCEPT THAT FIRST OPTION WAS THE ACHIEVEMENT  OF AIBEA AND AIBOA Instead of appreciating AIBOA and AIBEA for their prompt forecasting  in 1995 itself and ask for pension,  we are blaming them for no fault.

  I BELIEVE THAT THIS MUD SLIDING MAY ONLY RUIN OUR UNITY.  

With regards

Suresh Bhat M

Canara Bank SVRS

........................................................................................................

[perumal maruthu]

Dear veeraswamy sir,

Let anyone take credit for ONE MORE OPTION. If this achievement is taken credit by Aiboc or any other union, there is nothing wrong in their claim. But one should ask 'why some people call it betrayal or surrender'and  conveniently try to hide/forget the fact that 6.5% of Basic is now paid as monthly ALLOWANCE FOR PENSION BALANCING COST to all in SBI including the retired from 27/11/2009? WHen a scorpion stings the coconut tree, how is it that the palm tree yields more fruits?

M.Perumal

Chennai

[ravi jain]

dear Suresh Bhat M,

i was member of AIBOA affiliated unit of my bank. even i was general secretary of  west  Bengal unit of my bank at that time. Mr. Tarkeshwar chakravorty, President AIBEA, was our president. so question of blaming my parent organisation do not arise. I ACCEPT THAT FIRST OPTION WAS THE ACHIEVEMENT  OF AIBEA AND AIBOA but later on why the pension favouring unions forget to get clause 12 of that time agreement of updation and other related problems solved by 31/12/93. it is simple because other non AIBEA & AIBOA unions were not supporting them on this matter. now they have made AIBEA & AIBOA parties for getting 2 nd pension option. again this time our loving unions AIBEA & AIBOA ,why not asked AIBOC to add updation/ DA neutralisation clause before supporting them for 2nd pension option. is this not a forcing other for toing their line, when AIBEA & AIBOA are clear about pension matters.  further to ruin our unity does not rise at all and even is not a question of mud sliding. if anybody does not like my opinion then it is anybody's sweet will but what i think right i will not hesitate to opine. further now i am not blind follower of any unions and will appreciate that one who will take care of us and will give their voice in our favour. 

be happy

ravi jain (PSB)

[sureshbhat M]

Dear Ravi sir

   

    Reply to your question is very simple.

    

        As you said during demand for second option UFBU was formed and all the bargaining were made collectively after due in door discussions by all the participants. Once UFBU is formed both credits and debits are SHARED EQUALLY. You can blame only those who did not join it or those who openly came out of it. THIS IS THE REASON WHY  TODAY WE ARE BLAMING UFBU  FOR NOT DOING ENOUGH FOR THE RETIREES.( Not any independent constituent).

            Sir , will you please explain why AIBOC which claims applause for 2nd option is not accepting blame for not claiming Pension updation/+100% neutralisation at the very same time?.  Please note that after the UFBU is formed, it has taken the collective lead and you can not distinguish the achievements and praise or blame any one constituent.Under the UFBU banner all are equal.It takes the decision basing on the ideas given by all and move with the negotiations in the  best interest of   existing employees first and Pensioners next. Actually we are fools to discuss  who is great and who is bad in our forum 

  Sir in a war, all- Army, Navy and Air force- are equally responsible for both win or defeat.  Then how come AIBOC claim individually for the success of 2nd option.  Even now if any strike calls are successful 70 or 80%, the 20% sitting inside are... yes! so called key holders and updater of pending works!  How many Circle offices,Regional offices. Head Offices remain closed during strike call?. Who is filling cash to ATMs during strike?

Regarding membership, during my service I was in AIBEA for 11 yrs: AIBOA 4 yrs;and AIBOC 8 yrs. But now I am in Retired /pensioners group for last 10 yrs.

  I hope the matter is clear between us. 

With regards

Suresh Bhat M

...............................................................................................................................................................

[venkat rao]

Dear Bhat,
Every union is at fault including the UBFU.Only SBI employees are getting extra benefit at every bipartite settlement and they make their own settlements.They get 3 benefits like pension, PF,gratuity.Thier clerical staff were getting extra increments even when recuit was appointed by the same regional recuitment board who were also recruiting for nationalised banks and associate banks of SBI.The probationery Officers were placed 4 increments more in the JM I scale.THey got the computer increment some 2 years earlier than others because of the brinkmanship of other unions.I have learnt that EX SBBJ employees are going to get 3 retirement benefits after their merger with SBI.If somebody in this forum is denying the facts he is not only misleading others but himself.You can get all this information through RTI act.Prepare for the worst,Hope for the best.They may get enhanced gratuity from 01/01/2006 also as they have taken up the matter with their the management.Face the reality.
Thanks a billion billion
Venkatrao.H
SBM Mysore

---

From: ravi jain <ravij...@gmail.com>
To: bankpe...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wed, 21 September, 2011 2:27:47 PM
Subject: Re: bankpensioner Mind boggling facts for the bank pensioners/retirees

[y.manickam]

I agree with what SHRI C N PRASAD says.Under provisioning or over
provisioning, the banks have to pay as per the agreement entered
into.Once the banks have agreed to pay why bother about provisioning
at all?The banks have to pay the pension that is all,how we need not
bother,and fulfill the commitment.There are other areas where we need
to be redressed immediately and let us unitedly contribute for that. I
too have the experience of my comments going unpublished as they
contained some embarrassing observations.Rather than resorting to this
it would have been better if we stood corrected by their replies to
the points raised,but this seems to be the easiest way of avoiding
unpleasant comments on their mistakes going public.MY DEAR FRIEND C N
P, ,WE SHOULD BE PREPARED FOR BOTH ,BOUQUETS AND BRICKBATS,when we
share a public platform.WITH REGARDS Y MANICKAM

On Sep 20, 10:30 pm, Prasad C N <cn_prasa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Dear friends,
>
> Please stop hate mails.  I have written some valid comments and opinion to Allbanking Solutions. The same was not published.  If you want your article/write up to be published, you need to send article/mails accusing bank managements/Unions.  
>
> But, unfortunately, right comments do not draw attention.  Take the example of the article, where it is stated that 
> 'Really or allowing cover up of past loot of Employees pension fund'.  
>
> Please let the author explain who has looted that money.  If we even assume that there was deliberate under-provision, then who are the beneficiary.  Beneficiaries include every employee including employees who were in service during that period.  Higher load in BPS and allocation to Staff Welfare Fund is part of this loot.  Please correct me, if I am wrong.  I will add further that some of those who have commented extensively on this article, without even understanding the background, might have been the beneficiaries of this loot.  The Government of India is a major beneficiary of this loot.  This is because, their share holding is more than 51% in all Public Sector Banks.  Which means, the Government of India has taken away more than Rs.10,000/- crores.
>
> This loot would have been much more, if every one of those who opted for Pension now were to opt for pension during 1995.  
>
> Please ask the author of the article to explain How this under provision is going to affect pensioners.  Can you expect more pension, if they were to allocate this portion earlier.  I request the knowledgeable members to explain, how we are affected by this under provision.
>
> Please read, understand and then comment.  Everything bad about the banks/unions are not good always. 
>
>  
> Thanks, a Million.
>
> With regards,
> Prasad C N
>
> ________________________________

> From: bass <basha_4...@rediffmail.com>

> > andwww.allbankingsolutions.commaynot subscribe to such views.  The

> > contents or data has not been verified / re-checked.  In case, any abuse is
> > noticed, the same may be brought to our notice at
> > allbankingsoluti...@gmail.com so that we c
>
> > --
> > D S MURTI
>
> > --
> > D S MURTI
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bankpensioner" group.
> To post to this group, send an email to bankpe...@googlegroups.com.

> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bankpensione...@googlegroups.com.

[Prasad C N]

Dear friends,

Members who comment, please do your home work.  Please go back and go through the books published by AIBEA, AIBOC and NCBE.  I have preserved these books.  In fact, wherever, I could I had ensured that they opted for Pension, but not PF.  For your information, I am substantiating my stand point by point :

AIBOC is 100% right when it  say "second option their achievement". AIBEA & AIBOA was already in favour of pension in 1995. BEFI & AIBOC was right at that time about calculating PF amount to be received keeping in view prevailing interest rates at that time. now when they thought that calculation has gone wrong due to softening of interest rates then they demanded pension option, by forcing AIBEA & AIBOA and other unions to touch their line, and got it. we are boasting that we took it in 1995. now they are equal to us. had interset rates regime remained the same of 1995 they would have defenitely not asked for pension option. it means they are in commanding position vis-vis other unions.

Now, we talk about reduction in interest rate is the reason for making Pension attractive .  Do you feel that if interest rate were to be at the same levels, then PF is still attractive.   Definitely not.  Please go through statements of RBI Governor during recent rate hike.  Interest rates are inter related to inflation. When the interest rates were lower, inflation was also lower.  When inflation is lower, increase in DA is also lower.  When DA is lower, new pay scales are also lower.  Please check records or history.  Now, interest rates are also moving towards the rates which existed during 1993 -1995.  The real rate of return was negative then (Inflation was 14% and PF interest was 12%) and when interest rates were lower, real rates of interest were far higher than 1993 - 1995.   Inflation was 3 - 4% and interest rate was 6 - 8%.  If PF amount is Rs.20 lakhs, what is value of that Rs.20 lacs and what is the pension.  Pension would not be less than Rs.56,000/- @ 8% inflation rate. The commutation itself is Rs.12 lakhs. 

Now, question yourself, if the interest rates were to be at the same rate, then what you would have done now ?

PF or Pension ? Why almost every leader of AIBOC has opted for Pension ?  Cross check with your friends.

One of my friends was telling me that intelligent people (Senior Officers, etc.) in majority opted for PF and not so intelligent people like Sub-ordinate staff and people like opted for Pension.  Across, all banks 80 - 90% of Sub-ordinate staff opted for Pension.  Please cross check.

Why General Secretary of AIBOC did not sign 2nd option Pension Agreement ?

I would love to answer the questions Mr.Somashekar has raised.    

 

Thanks, a Million.

With regards,
Prasad C N

From: ravi jain <ravij...@gmail.com>
To: bankpe...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, 21 September 2011 11:59 AM
Subject: Re: bankpensioner Mind boggling facts for the bank pensioners/retirees

[bass]

Dear Sir,

I do not want to comment on AIBEA, AIBOC or some other.

You have written that one of your friend told you that the intelligent
people opted PF and not pension, whereas lower cadre employees opted
for pension.
I totally disagree with this. May be your friend is not that much
intelligent. At that time, he might not have done proper homework.

In 1994, as a scale II officer, I took initiative and have issued a
circular in New Delhi to all bank employees highlighting the necessity
to opt for pension. My equation was "Present (1994) salary minus tax
minus TENSION is equal to PENSION. Whether you are senior or junior,
lady or gent. wife or husband, officer or clerk, canara bank or andhra
bank, muslim or hindu, south indian or north indian, punjabi or
bengali-----------------You opt for pension. Broadly calculating as
--- the commutation will take care of your PF portion and the monthly
pension is extra. PF amount will not stay with you till your last
breath and can not give social status and security.

I left none in my bank and made them to opt for pension, as a family
well wisher. Right from General Manager to sub-staff, everybody opted
pension only, as against the amature propaganda made by one section of
union leaders.

Forget about the useless calculations, unpredicted inflation and
interest rates ------ advise everybody to opt for pension and lead a
pleasant tensionless life, till last breath with dignity.

Regarding Mr.Somasekara's questions, no union leader dared to give
proper reply. If at all any body dared to do so, it will become a
futile effort and nothing else. It is a lesson for those who have
spoiled the interest of the officers, by not taking up the issues,
seriously, at right time.(even till now) .

With regards
S.M.BASHA

On Sep 21, 11:35 pm, Prasad C N <cn_prasa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Dear friends,
>
> Members who comment, please do your home work.  Please go back and go through the books published by AIBEA, AIBOC and NCBE.  I have preserved these books.  In fact, wherever, I could I had ensured that they opted for Pension, but not PF.  For your information, I am substantiating my stand point by point :
>
> AIBOC is 100% right when it  say "second option their achievement". AIBEA & AIBOA was already in favour of pension in 1995. BEFI & AIBOC was right at that time about calculating PF amount to be received keeping in view prevailing interest rates at that time. now when they thought that calculation has gone wrong due to softening of interest rates then they demanded pension option, by forcing AIBEA & AIBOA and other unions to touch their line, and got it. we are boasting that we took it in 1995. now they are equal to us. had interset rates regime remained the same of 1995 they would have defenitely not asked for pension option. it means they are in commanding position vis-vis other unions.
>
> Now, we talk about reduction in interest rate is the reason for making Pension attractive .  Do you feel that if interest rate were to be at the same levels, then PF is still attractive.   Definitely not.  Please go through statements of RBI Governor during recent rate hike.  Interest rates are inter related to inflation. When the interest rates were lower, inflation was also lower.  When inflation is lower, increase in DA is also lower.  When DA is lower, new pay scales are also lower.  Please check records or history.  Now, interest rates are also moving towards the rates which existed during 1993 -1995.  The real rate of return was negative then (Inflation was 14% and PF interest was 12%) and when interest rates were lower, real rates of interest were far higher than 1993 - 1995.   Inflation was 3 - 4% and interest rate was 6 - 8%.  If PF amount is Rs.20 lakhs, what is value of that Rs.20 lacs and what is the pension.  Pension would not
>  be less than Rs.56,000/- @ 8% inflation rate. The commutation itself is Rs.12 lakhs. 
>
> Now, question yourself, if the interest rates were to be at the same rate, then what you would have done now ?
> PF or Pension ? Why almost every leader of AIBOC has opted for Pension ?  Cross check with your friends.
>
> One of my friends was telling me that intelligent people (Senior Officers, etc.) in majority opted for PF and not so intelligent people like Sub-ordinate staff and people like opted for Pension.  Across, all banks 80 - 90% of Sub-ordinate staff opted for Pension.  Please cross check.
>
> Why General Secretary of AIBOC did not sign 2nd option Pension Agreement ?
>
> I would love to answer the questions Mr.Somashekar has raised.    
>
>  
> Thanks, a Million.
>
> With regards,
> Prasad C N
>
> ________________________________

> From: ravi jain <ravijain...@gmail.com>

> To: bankpe...@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, 21 September 2011 11:59 AM
> Subject: Re: bankpensioner Mind boggling facts for the bank pensioners/retirees
>
> sir,
> AIBOC is 100% right when it  say "second option their achievement". AIBEA & AIBOA was already in favour of pension in 1995. BEFI & AIBOC was right at that time about calculating PF amount to be received keeping in view prevailing interest rates at that time. now when they thought that calculation has gone wrong due to softening of interest rates then they demanded pension option, by forcing AIBEA & AIBOA and other unions to touch their line, and got it. we are boasting that we took it in 1995. now they are equal to us. had interset rates regime remained the same of 1995 they would have defenitely not asked for pension option. it means they are in commanding position vis-vis other unions. i may add that i am personally against double standard of AIBOC by giving additional benefit to their employees in SBI but keeping in view their performance to dictate other unions touch their line i may add that we should write/associate them also for updation/ DA
>  neutralisation etc. and should not think of their other activities. we should not make it issue by making them untouchable. i personally will support any unions which at least raise demand for us at some levels.grabe the occasion is today's philosphy. 
> be happy,
> ravi jain (PSB)    
>

> On 21 September 2011 10:44, Veeraswami V <veeraswa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> In north India AIBOC MADE A BIG propaganda against, pension. So also BEFITTING OPPOSED PENSION. Now we talk about second option and Befitting AIBOC  say second option their achievement
>
>
>
>
>
> >Veeraswami. V
> >Sent from my iPad
>

> >On Sep 20, 2011, at 4:14 PM, BHASKARAN VARADHARAJAN <bhaskarv1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Mr.Prasad,
> >>I fully agree with you. It is the big blunder done by our own colleagues who have not opted pension when it was introduced during the year 1995.I know how much advice I have given to our own colleagues , at that time they laughed at me and advised me that they will be getting more by opting P.F.. Now they realised pension is  better than P.F., when the ROI for P,F is reduced. For our own mistake why should we blame others.
> >>With regards
> >>Bhaskaran.V
>
> >>> 
> >>> --
> >>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bankpensioner" group.
> >>To post to this group, send an email to bankpe...@googlegroups.com.
> >>To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bankpensione...@googlegroups.com.

> >>For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/bankpensioner?hl=en-GB.

> >>--
> >You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bankpensioner" group.
> >To post to this group, send an email to bankpe...@googlegroups.com.
> >To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bankpensione...@googlegroups.com.

> >For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/bankpensioner?hl=en-GB.

[Prasad C N]

Dear Mr.Somashekara,

Point point by reply from my side would be there tomorrow (i.e tonight) night.  I need to scan some documents and reply.

I also request facts regarding your comments by then. 

 

Thanks, a Million.

With regards,
Prasad C N

---

From: J SOMASEKARA <jsomase...@gmail.com>
To: bankpe...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, 21 September 2011 3:01 AM

Subject: Re: bankpensioner Mind boggling facts for the bank pensioners/retirees

[perumal maruthu]

Dear sri Venkatrao!

You have conveniently forgotten to mention the 6.5% of Basic as monthly 'PENSION BALANCING COST' paid to all in SBI wef 27/11/2009.Not only yourself, but all the Accusers refuse to say anything now and they may rake up the same after a decade.

PF-optees in Non-SBI have become pension optees after paying a PRICE. For that, in what way is it  justified to pay an extra allowance to SBI? Let SBI pay anyamount to its staff. But not as a counter benefit to one more option to non-sbi staff making a colossal mockery of one more option.Has any otherbank union demanded for ALLOWANCE OR COMPENSATION FOR PENSION GIVEN AS III BENEFIT TO SBI IN THE PAST SETTLEMENTS? The benfit of one more option will accrue only at the time of the concerned individual's exit and it can not be quantified in terms MONEY while in service. I have no ill-will against Sbi or its Leaders for their achievments obtained thr' backdoor.

Regarding various higher benefits to sbi staff:

After joining bank service and after service, whoever I met I have advised him to join SBI as their First choice,RBI as their II choice and other PSU Banks as ONLY A LAST RESORT for obvious reasons known to all. Therefore moaning over one's fate after joining other Banks is crying over spoilt milk.

SBBJ:  If merger brings cheers  all will welcome it. If pension as III benefit is granted, then all other Banks can also demand MEGA MERGER of all banks with SBI to get ALL THE BENEFITS.

But, do you think Gov't will ever do it? Gov't will continue to pamper only SBI as they want alwys Sbi separated from the mainstream. Pl note that equal treatment is not given to the ASSOCIATE banks even after decades and even though both discharge same duties under single ENTITY.

If gratuity is enhanced from 1/1/2006 in SBI/SBBJ, definitely other PSU banks will have to extend the same.

As you have said, one should not lose sight of the ground realities ALWAYS AND ALL THE TIMES.

M.Perumal

CB-SVRS

From: venkat rao <venka...@yahoo.co.in>
To: bankpe...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, 21 September 2011 7:25 PM
Subject: Re: bankpensioner Mind boggling facts for the bank pensioners/retirees

Dear Bhat,
Every union is at fault including the UBFU.Only SBI employees are getting extra benefit at every bipartite settlement and they make their own settlements.They get 3 benefits like pension, PF,gratuity.Thier clerical staff were getting extra increments even when recuit was appointed by the same regional recuitment board who were also recruiting for nationalised banks and associate banks of SBI.The probationery Officers were placed 4 increments more in the JM I scale.THey got the computer increment some 2 years earlier than others because of the brinkmanship of other unions.I have learnt that EX SBBJ employees are going to get 3 retirement benefits after their merger with SBI.If somebody in this forum is denying the facts he is not only misleading others but himself.You can get all this information through RTI act.Prepare for the worst,Hope for the best.They may get enhanced gratuity from 01/01/2006 also as they have taken up the matter with their the management.Face the reality.
Thanks a billion billion
Venkatrao.H
SBM Mysore

From: ravi jain <ravij...@gmail.com>
To: bankpe...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wed, 21 September, 2011 2:27:47 PM
Subject: Re: bankpensioner Mind boggling facts for the bank pensioners/retirees

dear Suresh Bhat M,

i was member of AIBOA affiliated unit of my bank. even i was general secretary of  west  Bengal unit of my bank at that time. Mr. Tarkeshwar chakravorty, President AIBEA, was our president. so question of blaming my parent organisation do not arise. I ACCEPT THAT FIRST OPTION WAS THE ACHIEVEMENT  OF AIBEA AND AIBOA but later on why the pension favouring unions forget to get clause 12 of that time agreement of updation and other related problems solved by 31/12/93.it is simple because other non AIBEA & AIBOA unions were not supporting them on this matter. now they have made AIBEA & AIBOA parties for getting 2 nd pension option. again this time our loving unions AIBEA & AIBOA ,why not asked AIBOC to add updation/ DA neutralisation clause before supporting them for 2nd pension option. is this not a forcing other for toing their line, when AIBEA & AIBOA are clear about pension matters.  further to ruin our unity does not rise at all and even is not a question of mud sliding. if anybody does not like my opinion then it is anybody's sweet will but what i think right i will not hesitate to opine. further now i am not blind follower of any unions and will appreciate that one who will take care of us and will give their voice in our favour. 

[bhaskara sarma]

DEAR MANICKAM,
I DONT AGREE WITH YOUR VIEW THAT BANKS NEED NOT PROVIDE FOR PENSION
LIABILITY EVERY YEAR.THEY HAVE TO PROVIDE COMPULSORILY.OTHERWISE A DAY
MAY COME WHEN BANKS ARE IN TROUBLE THEY SIMPLY DISOWN THEIR
RESPONSIBILITY.I UNDERSTAND THE SAMETHING HAS HAPPENED TO SOME AIR
INDIA PENSIONERS.MAKING PROVISION IS EVERY YEARCOMPULSOR AND IT CAN
NOT BE DEFERRED..
WITH REGARDS,
YOURS FAITHFULLY,
P B SARMA,SBSVRS2001.

[Srinivasa Murti Devulapalli]

Mr. Bhaskara Sarma gaaru,
Are you from Syndicate Bank by any chance? I will be glad to know from you.  Thanks in the mean time
-Devulapalli Srinivasa Murti:   Manager (Retd.) Syndicate Bank (VRS2001)

--
D S MURTI

[y.manickam]

I beg to diff er on this point.Yes banks HAVE TO, I REPEAT, HAVE TO
MAKE PROVISIONS for all contingencies adequately.If they do not then
that is against the law.What for the various audits are there?The
balance sheets certified by the auditors for sufficient provisions
made are published for the public view every year.So no bank can
refuse to pay pension at any time when an agreement is entered in this
regard with the GOVT.approval. For non provisioning the GOVT.should
hold the respective bank managements responsible as this will amount
to criminal offence.WITH REGARDS.

On Sep 22, 12:09 pm, bhaskara sarma <pbsarm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> DEAR MANICKAM,
> I DONT AGREE WITH YOUR VIEW THAT BANKS NEED NOT  PROVIDE FOR PENSION
> LIABILITY EVERY YEAR.THEY HAVE TO PROVIDE COMPULSORILY.OTHERWISE A DAY
> MAY COME WHEN BANKS ARE IN TROUBLE THEY SIMPLY DISOWN THEIR
> RESPONSIBILITY.I UNDERSTAND THE SAMETHING HAS HAPPENED TO SOME AIR
> INDIA PENSIONERS.MAKING PROVISION IS  EVERY YEARCOMPULSOR AND IT CAN
> NOT BE DEFERRED..
> WITH REGARDS,
> YOURS FAITHFULLY,

> >> > andwww.allbankingsolutions.commaynotsubscribe to such views.  The

[bhaskara sarma]

Dear Murthy,
yes,I am FROM syndicate bank only.Oh WE KNOW EACH OTHER VERY WELL BUT
LOST CONTACT OVER THE YEARS.HOW ARE YOU. YOU CAN CONTACT ME BY
9703386000.
THANKING YOU ,
YOURS SINCERELY,
P B SARMA.

[venkat rao]

Dear Perumal, Thanks for your reply and additional information.Truth is bitter.Whether you like it or not.I have no regrets in joining my bank and enjoyed my stay there.Even after retirement I have great admiration for by my bank SBM and it will be so till my last breath.I am not at all accusing.You must face the reality.There is nothing wrong..Then only you can see a better picture.You can not chose certain things in life.The job is one of them.Prepare for the worst and Hope for the best. Thanks a billion Venkatrao.H SBM Mysore --- On Thu, 22/9/11, perumal maruthu <perumal...@yahoo.co.in> wrote: